Domestic terror attacks: Would increase or decrease public support for gun control?

[DMK]

Consider a few non firearms related terrorist attacks such as those using explosives, bio agents or other weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps some attachs on transportation infrastructure similar to Madrid.

Of course some political figures would use this as ammo to expand gun control, but do you think these attacks would increase or decrease public support for stricter gun control?

 

[AJ Dual]

I voted to say it would decrease public support for gun control.

However I'd like to hedge my bets until after the fall '04 elections. That's going to be the real barometer on how Americans feel about confronting terrorisim in a myriad of ways, including how American gun ownership might start evolving into how Israeli citizen gun ownership confronts terrorisim there.

My gut reaction if you make me choose is that Bush and the Republicans will do better in '04 than the media and the polling will let on. I also think that this will reflect on post-9/11 attitudes about self-defense.

 

[foghornl]

Generally, I would go with decreased gun gontrol. But it does depend on method of attack.

F'rinstance...Nuke/Bio/chem = less gun control

Bad Guys shooting up the place = more gun control screeching

 

[Ktulu]

It depends. If the domestic terror attacks are shootings, then we have a problem. Gun shows = terrorist bazaars, "terror assault weapons," WMD capacity magazines, etc.

I voted for a decrease in public support. After 9/11 gun sales shot up sharply.

 

[SodaPop]

9/11 changed some of my liberal friends minds.

I took 2 of them to the range last Sunday for the first time.

I talked to them about the AWB and the BS that goes with it and they agreed that its nonsense. They all said they felt safer knowing someone like me owns these things and they think they can come over my house if TSHTF. That's some what of a liability, though...

 

[geekWithA.45]

For the most part, Americans aren't stupid.

Gun sales went through the roof after 9/11, and a lot of people got oriented to the issues for the first time.

I'm thinking that even in a worst case mass public shooting style terrorist attack, _most_ Americans will realize that even 1 or 2 armed civies would have made some sort of a difference.

The dyed in the wool gun bigots would certainly try to exploit the thing, jumping around doing handstands, screeching "see! see!", but I think fewer and fewer people buy their antics anymore.

-----------

I have also encountered the "They all said they felt safer knowing someone like me owns these things and they think they can come over my house if TSHTF." syndrome from liberals.

It's like, well, guns are bad, but you're an OK guy, so it's OK for YOU to have them. I've also literally heard "We'll be right over as soon as SHTF. "

I've pointed out that my supply of guns, ammo, food and water is finite, and that they'd best prepare to look out for themselves, in case I was dead, busy, or already fled for the hills.

That turned at least one guys head. We're going gunshopping next month

 

[PATH]

After 9/11 we had a rush in the store. People were coming in and buying some sort of firearm or other. Lots of Mossberg 500's. We also sold a whole lot of pepper spray. I think another attack would increase the number of people coming in.

 

[gulogulo1970]

When people are afraid they buy guns. A new terror attack would fuel that rush to arm yourself. More gun owners=less people to oppose gun ownership.

 

[P95Carry]

More gun owners=less people to oppose gun ownership.

Wish it were that simple Gulo ..... cos I'll betcha that amongst the liberal anti types ... they will want their own gun, provided they can still make moves to deprive others. Seems to be their mindset!

 

[tc300mag1]

P95Carry Is right wish it was other way around but it wont be.

 

[Dave Bean]

PATH

What store do you work in ??? I'm trying to figure out all the possible..er..shopping places in Rockland Co. (I'm a resident)

Dave Bean

 

[mrapathy2000]

I add the option to the poll new terror attacks would have both effects. I believe it would drive people to buy firearms and others to condemn them and rights and freedom.

pre 9/11/01 I didnt own a single firearm. couple BB/pellet guns. I was a big fan of firearms in my youth though somewhere lost interest. now I own 5 handguns and 2 rifles and cannot spend my paychecks fast enough.

I am sure there is some new anti gunner out their as well or some radical,activist, protestor or conspiracy nut hating war and all sorts of other things.

 

[Dave Bean]

Before 9/11, I was a fat and happy Democrat from NY. I was in favor of gun control.

After 9/11, I woke up and smelled the coffee. We have a personal responsibility to defend ourselves. Heck, all of law enforcement was at Ground Zero and I noticed a ....lack.... of coverage everywhere else. Of course everyone was focused on the events, I heard that crime was down to nothing those couple of weeks. However, circumstances can change.

And back to the question....another attack would decrease the changes of more gun control.

Dave Bean

 

[manwithoutahome]

I voted more gun control. Reason:

It doesn't matter to the anti's whether it was box cutters or guns, they will call for more gun control.

The "government" will say that weapons of all types need to be registered or given up for "national security".

New bills will be introduced to "protect the American people from terrorist" which will include taking away what little we have in order to be "protected".

But, to look on the bright side:

After the '94 ban on so called "assault weapons" sales went through the roof. I myself bought a couple of those evil "assault pistols". So, there is more protection out there right now then there ever has been and I do feel safer that people have these.

After the 9/11 attacks, more people woke up and sales went through the roof by people that didn't think that it could "happen here". That means more and more people are out there armed, which makes me feel safer.

More and more states are allowing the Right to carry a concealed firearm. This makes me feel allot safer. What if I forget mine? What if I have to go to wal-mart after work and work doesn't allow me to carry (but I do anyway)? I feel safer that someone else in that store may have a weapon in order to help save my life.

Firearms are like having a fire alarm. You have them, but you hope to God that you never have to use them. I just feel safer having them around (geez, does this make me abnormal because I want my fellow people to have the means to not only save their life but mine also when I can't carry?).

M.

 

[TrapperReady]

IMO, public support for gun control would decrease. However, if the Democrats had more control on a national level, certain elements within the party would be very quick to push their anti-gun agenda forward.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I'm with Geek. There is still a John Wayne in most Americans and he/she will want the tools to preserve his own. Should another attack occur, if it is larger, there may be a breakdown of civil order which puts one in charge of their own 911 emergencies.

Don't bring a telephone to a gun fight.

 

[greyhound]

Gun sales went through the roof after 9/11, and a lot of people got oriented to the issues for the first time.

I'm one of those people!

I think the government would try to use terorism as a way of curbing arms sales, all while the people are clamoring for means to arm themselves.